Discussion on fighting Ammo Serialization bills

In this discussion (http://thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=339333) it was brought up that we should discuss ways to fight this bill in all the various states it is being brought to bear on the Activism board. To see a list of all of the proposed bills (they are all copy/paste jobs of the same proposed bill (http://ammunitionaccountability.org/Legislation/Ammo%20Accountability%20-%20Sample%20Legislation.pdf)) in the various states it has crept up in along with links to the bills themselves you can go to the following URL:

http://ammunitionaccountability.org/Legislation.htm

This is a copy/paste from there without the links just for reference:
2008 Legislation
Arizona:
Arizona House Bill 2833

New York
New York House Bill 6920 (Carried Over from 2007)
New York House Bill 7300 (Carried Over from 2007)
New York Senate Bill 1177 (Carried Over from 2007)
New York Senate Bill 3731 (Carried Over from 2007)

I'm trying to think of a parallel for the first amendment. Perhaps requiring that any piece of published information must include your Social Security Number, home address, and direct telephone number?

Essentially, an unreasonable burden that, while not directly impacting the word of the amendment (But you can still write whatever you want! It's not OUR fault if someone disagrees with you and harasses you continually.) the intent would be to make things so unpleasant that it would be avoided.

I'm also remembering Poll taxes and other shenanigans like this which were designed to try an end run around a right.

enkindler

February 18, 2008, 07:53 PM

The bill is dead in Washington state :)

==================================
Thanks for your message. The bill is dead.

Jeanne

Senator Jeanne Kohl-Welles
36th Legislative District

Blackbeard

February 18, 2008, 08:13 PM

The proper analogy would be to require you to include your name and address on your ballot when you vote.

Blackbeard

February 18, 2008, 08:17 PM

Or even more apt -- requiring shoe manufacturers to encode the soles of their shoes with unique markings so that footprints left at a crime scene can be traced to the person who bought the shoes.

Librarian

February 18, 2008, 08:47 PM

California:
California Senate Bill 997 (Carried Over from 2007)
SB 997 (http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bill/sen/sb_0951-1000/sb_997_bill_20070426_amended_sen_v97.html) is not now, nor has it ever been, about ammunition.

So far as I can determine (which means nothing is on the official site) no current California bill deals with ammunition serialization - although any pending bill could be 'gutted' and such content inserted. We're worried about the budget here first. If I could rely on common sense, I'd hope that other concerns would vanish until that gets fixed.

Blackbeard

February 19, 2008, 07:50 PM

I wrote my state rep and senator (first time for both of those), and urged them to oppose the IL bills. The rep wrote back today and says he shares my opposition to them.

Brenainn

February 19, 2008, 08:47 PM

If they make it so difficult to buy ammo, there will be no need for gun control. We really need to do something about this before it gets out of hand...

RP88

February 19, 2008, 09:06 PM

all it means is that there wont be rec shooting anymore. We'll just still buy guns and an overpriced box worth of ammo for a couple clips and use them to defend ourselves instead of being able to go out and practice and have a little joy out of the investment. All it means to criminals is that they have to use a little more of their blood/crime money to buy bullets after shooting someone, just spend 30 minutes with a file, or find a way to keep the casings from being discarded (use of revolvers, tape a bag over the port, spend an extra 15 seconds to pick them up after shooting someone, etc.)

Even if prices quadrupled, and it became 70 bucks for 50 9mm shots, crime would not be affected at all. Just a bunch of unhappy law-abiding rec shooters is all that will come out of such bills.

Brenainn

February 20, 2008, 12:06 AM

all it means is that there wont be rec shooting anymore. We'll just still buy guns and an overpriced box worth of ammo for a couple clips and use them to defend ourselves instead of being able to go out and practice and have a little joy out of the investment. All it means to criminals is that they have to use a little more of their blood/crime money to buy bullets after shooting someone, just spend 30 minutes with a file, or find a way to keep the casings from being discarded (use of revolvers, tape a bag over the port, spend an extra 15 seconds to pick them up after shooting someone, etc.)

Even if prices quadrupled, and it became 70 bucks for 50 9mm shots, crime would not be affected at all. Just a bunch of unhappy law-abiding rec shooters is all that will come out of such bills.

Yep.

swifteagle

February 20, 2008, 11:09 AM

Actually the criminals will still be able to buy cheap non-serialized ammo. They'll simply have an underground network buying ammo made illegally, or purchased from a location where non-serialized ammo is not illegal to make - whether that is another State, or another Country. I believe it is Remington that said they have looked into ammo serialization & has stated that the legislation would require inventing an entirely new manufacturing process requiring retooling etc - would not be economically feasible for them so they simply would not sell Ammo in any States that were to require it.

I listened to an interview last night on Cam & Company NRA News (still available until tonight at nra.org) & the guy who has applied for the patent does not even know how it would be implemented - he said he would leave that up to "the experts" to determine although he already applied for a patent & plans to charge a per round licensing fee. Incredible.

cyclist

February 20, 2008, 03:02 PM

Just one question:
Is this process or technology even functionally possible?

swifteagle

February 21, 2008, 05:19 PM

I listened to an interview on NRA News the other night - they plan to re-run the recorded interview tonight @ 5pm Pacific time. One of the two guys that has applied for the patent on the idea & also hired the lobbying firm to push the legislation admitted that he has no idea how to actually do it. He said he would leave that up to the "experts" of the gun industry to figure out. He just wants to earn his per round licensing fee for creating a process that he will own the patent rights on.

Yes that's right, he's a bit nutty, but hey, if he can find a way to either ban all ammunition or if not make ammunition cost a fortune while making Trillions of dollars off of the "evil" Gun industry with nothing more than pushing for "sensible" legislation & applying for a patent, than I guess he will be very popular with his anti gun friends with either result.

Cam also mentioned that at least one manufacturer already looked into it & determined that if it were even possible, it would require a complete overhaul & revamp of the entire manufacturing process, in addition to not being economically feasible. In short, if the legislation passed in any given state, they would simply no longer sell Ammo there.

Norton

February 21, 2008, 05:37 PM

Hey guys,

I've got to tell you, discussing our specific strategies in the open like this is making it hard on those of us who are still dealing with general assemblies that are in session.

A whole bunch of the strategizing regarding the uncovering of the financial ties to these bills with Ammunition Coding Systems got thrown back in our faces in MD today.

Their professional PR people are obviously aware of these discussions online and are using them against us by getting the press involved and taking away some of the thunder we were planning to use in our committee hearings on Tuesday.

Not an admonishment....just a reminder that we're not exactly in a private forum here.

revjen45

February 24, 2008, 08:13 PM

all it means is that there wont be rec shooting anymore. We'll just still buy guns and an overpriced box worth of ammo for a couple clips and use them to defend ourselves instead of being able to go out and practice and have a little joy out of the investment. All it means to criminals is that they have to use a little more of their blood/crime money to buy bullets after shooting someone, just spend 30 minutes with a file, or find a way to keep the casings from being discarded (use of revolvers, tape a bag over the port, spend an extra 15 seconds to pick them up after shooting someone, etc.)

Even if prices quadrupled, and it became 70 bucks for 50 9mm shots, crime would not be affected at all. Just a bunch of unhappy law-abiding rec shooters is all that will come out of such bills.
======================================================
That's the general idea. The Libs hate us because we have successfully resisted them on something they have wanted to badly for so long. It has nothing to do with crime control.

Norton

February 27, 2008, 07:21 AM

We had our hearings on HB517, MD's little gem of the ammo encoding bill.

The long and short of it was that even the sponsor of the bill knew thing was dying a quick death and kept offering amendments to exempt long gun ammunition ( I wonder what calibers those would be).

Our allies on the committee laid out would be millionaire Russ Ford for bringing legislation to the table that would really only benefit his bank account.

For you folks in states where this is still a pending hearing, here are two threads you might want to glean through for, pardon the pun, ammunition to fight this.

Resources (http://www.mdshooters.com/showthread.php?t=4936)

Recap and after action report starts on page three of this thread (http://www.mdshooters.com/showthread.php?t=5360&page=3)